tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 19, 2013 9:00am-11:01am EST
serve the world. while adam one favors his own accomplishments, adam two sometimes renounces worldly success for the sake of his own sacred purpose. adam one's moderate is achievement. adam two's moderate is charity, redemption and enunciation. joseph argued this contradiction in the character between the two is irreconcilable. we live lives of perpetual self -- between the achievement side of our nature and the internal side of our nature. the hard part of this confrontation is that the two have different logix. adam one, the creating building achievement adam lives by pretty straightforward logic which is like the logic of economics. input leads to output, effort leads to reward, not just makes perfect, maximize your utilities. adam two lives by an inverse logic, and it's a moral logic,
not an economic logic. he has to give to receive, you have to surrender something outside yourself to gain strength within yourself. you have to conquer your desire to get praise, success leads to the greatest better which is bright. failure leads to greater success which is humility and learning. and so do nurture your adam one grid you want to maximize your strength. work on your adam two interval side of life, you want to confront your weakness. so there's a confrontation between these two beliefs and these two ways of operating. i wanted to talk more about that adam two side which get so underplayed in public life and, frankly, in venues like this one. adam two starts with a different negotiated different way of belief. it starts with the belief that we are not special, that we are broken, divided creatures that the central theme of our weakness is that we're self-centered, that pride is a central vice, that pride blinds us to the reality of our own
divided nature. humility is a central virtue. humility does have and i could attest to the own nature. having awareness you're an underdog and struggle against your own weakness. and that is struggle against your own weakness is the main trauma of life. not the external climate of the career of the struggle against your own weakness is the main trauma of life. and that no person can achieve self, can do well in this on his or her own, that individual, reason are not showing up to be pride and self deception inside of us. and that developing inner life requires fighting -- fighting the ego and going to sell. only by doing that you can see yourself in the world objectively. so these are a different set of beliefs that are taught in achievement class, that are taught in the ivy league, that are taught by uber moms in the volvos. the second thing about adam two is that he lives in a world, but
he transcends the world. he lives in a material existence but he transcends, tries to surpass that into a realm -- i lost a piece of paper. transcends the material world where he is constantly aware of the next world. the third trait of this adam two's life is that requires a different mode of communication. the skills that you learn that you do to win achievement, you do to enhance the skills that you need for your job, for your career, these are things that can be taught in a class, can be communicated in a movement. the things that you need for your internal life are things that are not taught but only imported. and this came to me, ma i was writing a column and i got the letter from a veterinarian in
washington state. and he described in this e-mail how moral lessons are actually transmitted. and his point was it's not the center. it's not me or any of a standing in front of a lecture giving a sermon and telling people to be moral. here's what he wrote to me. just a random guy. the heart cannot be taught in a classroom intellectually. the students began for taking notes preoccupied with relationships, dating into grad school, medical commentaries about the latest political atrocity. good, wise hearts are a pain through lifetimes of diligent efforts to give deeply within and the lifetime of scars. the job of a wise person is to swallow the frustration and just go on setting an example of caring and digging and diligence in their own lives. what a wise person teaches is the smallest part of what they
give. the totality of their life, of the way to go about it in the smallest details is what gets transmitted. never forget that. the message is the person. perfected over lifetimes of effort that was set in motion by yet another wise person now hidden from the recipient by the dim mists of time. life is much bigger than we think, cause and effect intertwines an advanced moral structure that keeps pushing us to do better, to become better, even when we dwell in the most painful confused areas. there's always some bored student in the class at some point tuning fork is just waiting to be struck, and exquisitely true note it at the perfect moment. that note can only be struck from a teachers truly found and in the guiding presence, and his life is about sticking with the presence. and so the key sentence in this e-mail were what a wise person teaches is the smallest part of what they give, and the message
is the person. the communication is in the presence of the person and not in any words coming out of mouth, which is humbling for those of us in my business. the final thing to be said is the goal of this, the life of those are trying to escape the character challenges of living in washington, living in this culture is to achieve this balance between adam one and adam two, to achieve come to do achievement you want to do something in the world but also to achieve -- there's a great albert schweitzer quote is that there are no heroes of achievement. they were measured by what we give up. and one of my intellectual heroes as a guide in san agustin. and cindy us in had a conversion, famous the conversion scene in the garden. after he has this conversion seeing he is another scene with his mom whose name is monica.
monica was the ultimate helicopter mom. she was impressive, greedy mom. but at the end of his life and the end of her life rather, he describes a scene of confession in book eight where he has a consultation with her. and he achieves what you might call the adam two dream. he writes at the very highest the light of -- earthly sentences in the purest material like, in respect of the sweetness of that life. and they did this by passing be on the things of material world. they passed through, he wrote, all things bodily, even a very heaven and the sun and the moon and the stars that shine upon the earth. and having passed through material things, we came quote into our own mind and went beyond them into the realm of pure spirit. and there's a long since that doesn't actually make sense, but
he has this trope where he uses the words hushed. he talks about how the tone of the flesh was hushed. the waters in the air was hushed. the world was hushed. itself was hushed i'm not thinking about the self. the mind was hushed. all those things were hushed, and entered a realm of pure joy. and in that passage you see the ambition, and he was an ambitious guy. you see it all being hushed. and achieving a certain serenity which he shared with his mother five days before she died. another of my heroes who achieve this is a woman, a great woman named dorothy day, whom i hope all of you know. door the day was a social worker and a pacifist. she was a great writer and i highly recommend her book, the long loneliness. at the end of her life she thought she would sit down and she would write a memoir. and she told a journalist what
happened the moment she sat down to write a memoir. she wrote, or she said, the other day i wrote down the words a life remembered, and i was going to try to make a summary for myself. writes about what mattered most, but i couldn't do it. i just sat there and thought of the lord and his visit to us all those centuries ago, and i said to myself, that my great love was to have had him on my mind for so long in my life. and in that sense you can see someone not needing to express, not needing to achieve, but adam one bowing down to adam two. and that is got to be part of the corrections in the prescription for leading an overly busy, overly harrowed life that most of us lead. getting to that place where adam one us down. you feel the serenity cannot
achieve, to not test, not e-mail and to just enjoy that peace and that fulfillment. thanks for your attention applaud that. >> since we'll have 15 minutes, i wanted to break this up a little bit, have budget, have outside because the big thing in the age right now sequestration and get into about 10 to 11 months of it. maybe i'm overstating it. can you tell me, looking back hasn't been bad? has been worse than it spent good? how has a major expectations? how -- was hesitant to your agency? >> sam, thanks for being the person asked the question because you've written about this in "huffington post," and those been very helpful stories in laying out the consequences of sequester for this particular part of what the government investing the mainly medical research. sequester has been devastating. we at nih, the national institutes of health, are the largest support of biomedical research in the world. we hear about the discovery of
something that relates to medical research in cancer or diabetes or heart disease or some advancement in hiv/aids, it's extremely likely if it's a research effort that was conducted in academic institution that it was supported by nih. and yet we have over the last 10 years been expecting a progressive loss of purchasing power based upon relatively flat budgets being eroded by inflation. so even before sequester, nih and its investigators all over this country were in a pretty tough s.p.o.t. and then sequester came along in march and took away a billion and a half dollars. >> you said in her last talk to about 1000 research grants that could be a state here. is that still the number? >> the ultimate number now that we've got for fiscal year '13 come which is the worst in history as far as our ability to support research, we lost 640 research grants that would've otherwise been funded that gone through peer review that were scored in a very highest echelon
but which we simply could not afford to pay. people say, you only lost 5% of your budget. for those investigators a lost 100%. >> give us an idea when you say 640 grants, what kind of projects are we talking about? >> anything you can think of. is a project in cancer, diabetes, infectious diseases, autism and alston -- alzheimer's disease. every part of nih was affected by this loss. >> so the common refrain that i hear when i write about this is, there was a 5% cut the nih budget, but the trend it still spends more on research and development in any of the country as percentage of gdp i think we're only outpaced by south korea. surely we can do with the money we're spending. why is that? >> actually it's not true that we are outpaced by only a few countries. we're increasing the outpaced by quite a number of country. look at singapore, south korea,
india, china, all of whom are boosting up their investments. china will exceed us in the next five years not just as a percentage of gdp but in absolute dollars expended in biomedical research. i nature of a group called heads of international research organization that gets together every six month around the table are the ceos of funding agencies representing perhaps 90% of the funds they go to medical research in the world. we go around the table and everyone of these people there said we're going up by 5%, or going up by 10%, 15%. how about you, united states? we we lucky if we only go down by five. and a look at us like are you guys crazy? we are reading your playbook from tinges ago. have you forgotten your own success stories? america's economic growth not to mention its medical advances have been so heavily based upon these investments and medical research. we've been the envy of the world, but we are starting to be -- as people look at our trajectory and one how we lost our way.
>> we are now in yet another set of budget talks. this one a scaled-down version of some grand bargain but by december 15 or so we should know if we have a deal. is sequestration is not resolved by then, what happens to the nih in the next fiscal year? >> it gets worse. if there is no resolution to make sequester one of those bad dreams of history, then we will for fiscal year '14 stand to lose another $600 million as of january, which would represent another couple hundred grants that we were otherwise going to bill to fund. which one of those might have been the next breakthrough in cancer? which one of those might if i did a young going to go on to win the nobel prize but will now give up? this is the thing that worries me the most. if you're an investigator trying to do research supported by nih, that's where it is likely, you come with your best ideas, your chance of getting funded tradition over the last 50 years has been about 30% which is
still pretty tough. it's down now to 15%. that's very unhealthy. >> are you doing anything to refigure the grant application and award process so that people maybe not just the top 2% but you are taking some chances on some grants that aren't getting a peer review? >> one of the things we worry about is a very difficult budget times is that research will tend to be more conservative, won't put crazy, wild ideas out there and that's often what we're looking for are the truly innovative ideas that you would not have guessed would not have guessed would work but once in a while they do. we have initiated a number of programs we can't even apply to this particular program in less you have an idea that's considered really groundbreaking and get a heck of a lot of preliminary data. does the been actually very useful and it's kept its engine of innovation which america is famous for going. but it could be going so much better. for us at this moment, it's never been accelerating in terms
of the pace of progress, but to be held back this way. our most important resource which is a talented investigators, to be constrained and chasing after those ideas is a terrible waste spent last budget question. we saw during the government shutdown a big star over the past the clinical cancer, cancer clinical trials were not being funded because people are not going into them. that was an immediate impact of a shutdown. a lot of the stuff we're talking about though, we document down the road, could you point to a few things that may not be done in the immediate that could cause concerns to the public whether it's cancer care or whatever? are we put ourselves at risk? >> we are indeed. >> in what since? >> nih -- basic science sometimes things that look as if they're not connected with potential advances in the clinic but often you get surprised. the nobel prize winner has just
got announced a month ago, all three of them that were awarded the prize for physiology and medicine, at all for those that were awarded the prize for chemistry were nih grantees. all six said they weren sure in the current climate it would've been able to be funded by the research. it's basic science which is getting hammered by the fact we don't have the resources to support it so we are missing out some of those future nobel prize success stories. ivan's also clinical work. because of sequester our own clinical center, the largest research hospital in the world up here in bethesda had to turn away about 700 patients who would otherwise have been there to purchase but in a clinical trial. for cancer, heart disease, hiv-aids, including many children. that was not possible because of the cut. of the sequester doesn't go away we'lwe will continue to turn awy people who come to nih a sort of their last hope. oftentimes because the standard therapy hasn't worked and there's an extra mental trial
their accounting on which we hope will give them that help again. and get we have to tell many of them these days that we can't afford to bring them there. >> let's get into the dorky stuff. >> haven't we already? >> president obama rescinded the ban on stem cell research that president -- i know this technical terms. he rescinded restrictions on stem cell research. since and i think 2000 what kind of advancements have you made using stem cell research? would you like to see it codified into law so to get president couldn't reverse the? >> a lot has happened since that executive order, and nih was asked to put in place a process where human entry on extensive those derived from excess embryos that were left over after in vitro fertilization. could, in fact, result in cell lines that could be user federal fund. we can't support those lines but once they have been derived, they can send them interest to us making it clear that proper
consent was obtained and weakened and certify those can be used for research. there are over 200 of those now and they are being widely used and it taught us the great deal about health and disease. apps even more of an exciting advance came about six years ago with the realization that you don't have to necessarily derived such potent stem cells from interested you can derive them from any of us. this whole business that was figured out that you can take a skin biopsy, you can grow the cells out of the skin biopsy, you can add just for carefully chosen genes, and those cells will become what we call capable of turning themselves into liver or heart or kidney or brains from the individual. the open potential here is enormous but let me give you one example. what we would really like to know, before you get that expendable drug to anybody the first time, is that going to be safe or is it a toxic compound with the drug industry wants to know that.
right now we use animals to test for that, small animals, large animals that don't always predict accurately what will happen but now with these human cells which we can actually grow in three-dimensional organ would form and we can test them with a new drug and asked the cells are you happy? if they're happy, we will go ahead. if they give you a signal, no, this is not one you'd want to give location, we can avoid doing that. we are in the midst of doing a project right now. actually with darpa, as a partnership and with fda. those kinds of things were unimaginable a few years ago. the whole plasticity of human cells that can change them once i get another is really unprecedented and it opens up a whole host of opportunities in terms of therapy as well. you make stem cells, for your entries or for your brain if you parkinson's disease. that's a serious possibility. >> you have a much tighter disposition when you're talking about -- >> i do.
said, i have a paradoxical life. you paradoxical life. yours and ready. every morning i wake up thinking to be some exciting new scientific development today and i'm always right. everyday i also wake up and think there's probably going to be some unfortunate budgetary a little bit and i'm almost always right there, too. >> how do you cope? i was doing a little bit of research in a few hours i had to prepare this, and i'm curious to know if your opinion on human cloning -- i know you're a religious guy. i wrote a few things where it seems i couldn't nail down precisely wasted on issue of human cloning. >> i think human reproductive cloning is something we deathly just should not do. spend why not? >> there's no compelling reason scientifically why you should do this but it's not going to be safe at any time in centuries because you would know if it was safe until you try to. if you've been created a human being you have multiple development of problems, which every other animal clone has had, you would have done something unethical.
so why would you want to go down this road if there's no compelling medical reason spent you would want to clone yourself? >> baffling not. one of me is just about enough. [laughter] [applause] spend don't applaud that. that's a terrible thing. i put a question to twitter before going on here which is a dangerous thing but a fun thing to do about what i should ask you. shockingly, a few people wanted me to ask you about marijuana. they want to know what is the future of medical marijuana research funding? it obviously, we're going through a cultural evolution on how we approach marijuana law and i want an article into a scientific one as well? >> nih has for many years as part of its research agenda through parts of an age like the national institute on drug abuse studied this kind of question to try to discover and to provide real evidence in a rigorous way about what exactly are the benefits and the risks of marijuana in medical situations,
and a nonmedical situations. there's a big effort at the national institute of drug abuse to try to understand whether rental use of marijuana, particularly begin in adolescence as potential harms and it seems that it may very well have such arms in terms of reduction in i.t. we're in that space. were not trying to make a moral judgment or a political judgment. we're trying to actually derive information that can be used by those are going to make -- >> from a scientific standpoint, are you concerned by the states were legalizing marijuana in small doses? >> i don't think it's my position to take a stand on what states are doing with the information. again, nih's role, give the evidence out there, but those are the decision to make which is the general public have that information so they can decide wisely. >> one more question and i want to talk back to i guess the budget, which is what i hear when i write about this stuff is i will put up a piece and inevitably i will have three or four relatively young scientist right back as i can no longer --
the fun is to miss welcome the career opportunities are too strange. i'm leaving science. i'm assuming you have felt the same way. and i'm wondering how deep your concerns are about essentially losing a generation, a young generation of scientists, the brain drain due to the budget problem. it is an important issue and am wondering if you could address it? >> may be the most important issue if we're thinking about our future. see, look at what nih has contribute to our nation's health over the last 50 years. deaths from heart attacks are down by more than 70%. deaths from stroke down by more than 70% of hiv-aids which is to be a death sentence not compatible with almost normal survival but yet there's much more we need to do with cancer, autism, alzheimer's disease and we're on the path to do that but it's not going to happen without the talent. you're right that much of the current generation of young scientists is becoming increasingly discouraged and disheartened, and i get those
e-mails on, many times a day as well. a recent survey done by -- asks their scientist, these are, many of the basic scientist but some of them transitional, what i think about your future? 18% said they were certain consider moving to another country. think about that. talk about brain drain going the wrong way to our country has forced on the basis of being able to bring others to our shores, to work in our laboratories to get great training, many of them, to stay here and lead the own research groups. we are chasing this house away. we're chasing our own homegrown talent away. you might not know this, the consequences of that tomorrow when you go to your doctor, but 10 years from now you will. is that really what our nation wants what is this the path we want to be on? i don't think so. we're basically an innocent bystander in a terribly difficult fiscal debate that our nation is having. sequester was a poison pill we were never supposed to swallow, but it got swallowed and we got poisoned and we need to recover
from that and we need to do so soon. >> dr. francis collins, thank you so much. [applause] >> now, hillary clinton and laura bush on the future of afghan women. they spoke at georgetown university on friday for a half hour. >> well, it is my pleasure as well to be able to welcome secretary clinton and mrs. bush back to georgetown and hear from this conversation this morning. no one can question the commitment of either of you to this issue. i remember firsthand secretary clinton, when you were first lady, at the end of the '90s calling the world's attention to the abuses of the taliban were perpetrating, and how critical the afghan women were. and i remember so well,
mrs. bush, when the military engagement was called by your husband after 9/11 in afghanistan. and you took the president's radio address and told the world that the role of the afghan women would be important for building the future of their country and so you've heard a lot this morning. we're at a crossroads. the women have made enormous progress. they are very worried that the progress may be reversed. they are importing events i had. the elections in april for president, as well as a negotiated settlement, reconciliation process. we still don't know where that will go. but to say that the women are concerned is an understatement. they fear that they may be a bargaining chip in that negotiated process with the taliban. so what do we say, particularly
in the backdrop of a united states that his war weary, where we are focused on our many challenges at home? what can we do to ensure that this progress is not reversed, and as secretary kerry said, that this strategic necessity that the women represent to a better, prosperous, peaceful, stable afghanistan is realized? and both of you i know have a great deal to say on this subject. >> well, even as our troops drawdown, start to draw down, there are still many, many groups on the ground in afghanistan. and it gives us the chance now, all americans really, a chance to support those groups, to find the groups. to support her schools, and women centers that all over afghanistan. leslie is here who is the
fundraiser for american university of afghanistan. and i think maybe, we just may get some questions out of afghanistan from american university. you can give directly to the american university of afghanistan to make sure girls have scholarships there. so i think as our troops leave, it's a very, very important that we continue to support all the programs that were built over the last 10 years in afghanistan, including many that came from this very counsel, u.s. afghan women's council. and to work with our own congressmen and women to make sure afghanistan stays in the forefront, that people do pay attention to it. it's -- once our troops leave, the eyes of the united states will move away. and we can't let that happen. it's just, it's just so so important to what's important
>> continuing of a progress and closely coordinate with our friends around the world who also made great investments and stand ready to support that progress. 9 was very pleased with secretary kerry's remarks that we are closei was very pleased secretary kerry's remarks that we are close to the bilateral agreement. the number one issue is how they can continue their work if they don't have security and how to protect the girls that go to their schools, how to keep open the shelters for victims of domestic violence, how can they continue to encourage other women to take leadership positions, the government and the private sector. this is a very real worry. and we have to work with our own government, the obama
administration and john kerry and the other leaders of the administration, members of congress to keep this issue on the forefront and to coordinate as we withdraw with our coalition partners as well. i think to, as milan-did this work of peace and security we have to make the keys for the leadership of afghanistan that all of the sacrifice and the decades of war and conflict that have river urge -- ravaged the country could be for naught if we don't have are unified consensus about what must happen going forward. security is key, so are the elections. we deter reference to those elections, will determine whether there can be a peaceful
transition of power is that is validated in a fan and transparent manner by the people of afghanistan. what we look at, secretary kerry's formulation, the political and economics transition challenges facing us. we need to be committed on all three fronts in support of those women and men who realize afghanistan is so strategically located, has so many opportunities to be at the real center of what happened in south and central asia. that will dissipate if there is not a commitment that half the population we have our work cut out for us. women who are with us to make sure they continue to be given
the attention and resources they so richly deserve. >> just as we have the women with us in gaston hall there are other women in afghanistan in kabul and they can hear us, they can see us and they have sent in in advance a few questions they wanted to ask to women for whom they are immensely grateful for all they have done for them. you can see from this question that their minds are very much on the future and what is going to happen. [laughter] >> one question is how can we encourage development investments and preserve those that have been made after 2014? we all know investing has been
done in afghanistan. we want to assure that those are preserved and does it all end in 2014, or does this commitment continue? >> the commitment of the u.s./afghan women's council and the women who founded programs across afghanistan want to continue. they will continue. i hope there will also be obviously u.s. government participation as well. that is really important and international, the international community as well spend a lot of money and they will continue a lot of the programs they started but i also want to encourage especially the students at american university afghanistan after i heard anita in her talk, it is important for young people
in afghanistan to start a youth movement and get the word out before the elections about how important it is to vote and how important it is for all young people, bullies and girls, young men and young women, to be involved in the future of the country. they can let older people know that it is important that they live in a secure and safe country that they have a chance to build a prosperous, stable afghanistan they want. i want to encourage the students at american university and afghanistan to develop a strategy of public relations that you can use to protest last men in the street, that you can use to encourage people to vote to make sure afghanistan has free and fair elections, afghanistan really does show the rest of the world they can build the country they want to have.
>> that is a real opportunity. we were talking earlier in the council meeting that we need some kind of internet out reach, a virtual movement to support the courageous stand young people in afghanistan are making, to lift the support of young people around the world. to make sure your final voices are heard, to do some crowd funding on set -- the projects that are so important. with respect to the development, we held an international meeting in tokyo in 2012 and it was a very successful meeting. countries that had troops were it there as well as countries that had no military troops but
had sent those development experts and resources and the decision was made that that communities represent a great number of nations wanted to continue to support the development of afghanistan in a variety of areas but they did want to make sure there was transparency, there was an average to limit if not avoid corruption that there was a need for the government to be more open, to taking advice and expertise that could be better organized to deliver services to the afghan people, and i think that is shorthand attitude of the international community represented by governments and aid agencies and that is important because we do want to make sure any aid that comes in is actually delivered to people
who are doing the front-line work. but it would be a mistake for private funders not to continue to try to find people who are making a difference. how we do that is a subject we will be discussing further because even though governments may decide whatever standards they set are not being met, we would urge government to not give a too easily despite all the budget problems that governments everywhere are facing, and we would urge the private civil society community that has been so helpful in many areas of afghanistan not to give up either. so i think milan and our students at american university, we have to be very determined to
continue working together and encouraging the transfer of resources to those who have demonstrated attract record about being able to use them effected lee to get results. we can't give up and i think you both are right that as our troops come home there will be an understandable, totally human response in our country like fine, we spent all this money, we lost these brave men and women, we ran into a lot of problems. we are proud of what we accomplished but we can't continue at that rate and we have to be prepared to make the case why we don't have a choice but to continue in some form and fashion what has worked and i think that will fall to people like us to try to make the argument to the congress and the american public. [applause]
>> no surprise that security as you heard over and over is also on the minds of the students you just saw at the university. another question they have raised is how can they possibly raise awareness and preserve women's rights in the absence of security? >> it is very hard, let's be honest, it would be extremely hard and security is the paramount issue, security in and of itself for the physical well-being of people and also for the work that is being done. i would like to make a few quick points on this. i consider president hamid karzai a friend. i have worked with him since i was a senator. we have had many long
conversations over the last 12 years. i know how passion that he is about afghanistan's sovereignty end unity and i admire that and agree that as the president of the country, he must stand firm for the people of afghanistan, but i would hope that he will reach in the next two week's agreement with the united states on bilateral security agreement. the sticking point is when we have seen before, when we send our young men and women to train and mentor the afghan army and police in providing security for their own people, it is an absolute requirement that our troops be given immunity from local arrest and prosecution.
that is what we have in japan and cory and germany and anywhere in the world where you still see american troops, that is the requirement. and i understand hamid karzai's sensitivity to this but i would want to ask you to remember that we could not reach an agreement in iraq, and iraq is descending into a cycle of terrible violence. it is not that we could have stayed or how long we could have stayed but we didn't have a chance to test it because the government said we can't give the same immunity's that our presence in the gulf where we have troops in neighboring countries so this is a big decision for the afghan government. if you enter into bilateral security agreement it doesn't mean the united states will be there in great numbers.
it mean that we will be available to help support the security forces of afghanistan to protect against the continuing attacks from not only the afghan taliban but other terrorist groups across the border so that is the decision that has to be made and i know it is a difficult decision. i am not implying it isn't. if it is signed then we will have a chance to look seriously at what we and our continuing partners in providing security can offer. it is not signed, when the american troops and the nato and international coalition leave, the afghans are left totally to themselves. we have a very serious set of challenges that will be difficult for us to help with. so this has to be thought through carefully because security is paramount. if we cannot provide security for your people lot of the other
good results we are hoping for simply cannot happen. these next two weeks when it comes to security will be especially important and we won't know how to respond to the women's requests for support on security until we get an answer. >> do you want to add anything? >> obviously no country can function in a successful way without both security and rule of law and that comes from within the country as well as in this case the presence of our troops in afghanistan so that is one of the thing afghans need to work on, the people of afghanistan need to make sure they start to build the civic institution they need to support the democracy and they get the word out and i do think young people like i said before like a need that will make an effort to get the word out across the
country. and afghanistan set -- afghanistan can succeed. if we build our own security in the way and our own rule of law in a way that people respect and pay attention to. >> secretary clinton, a question from a georgetown graduate student, amanda. she has a question about the u.s. national action plan on women, peace and security which you launched at georgetown. she asks the plan calls for incorporating women's efforts into the range of u.s. work and development, diplomacy and defense. what does this mean for afghanistan? >> well, amanda, i think it means we have to do all we can to make the case and support the efforts of those with whom we are working to ensure that
women's voices are heard in the areas that you mentioned. that we have to stand firmly for women's rights to participate fully in afghan society. we have to continue to find ways to support the education of women, the entrepreneurship of women, the political careers of women so that there can be feasible models that we saw in the video and we saw on stage that can encourage women and men to see a vision of afghanistan that trudy can move it to a new stage of its great and storied history. in doing the national action plan, and i will give a plug to the national defense university which will be publishing a book of essays by a number of experts, military experts,
intelligence, diplomatic experts talking about the difference that involving women makes, not just we are up here saying it would be really nice if you did this. we know it works. representing their views. it is less likely to succeed in terms of ending conflict and providing security. just one quick example, one of my favorites is liberia, a place that laura and i have been too and we admire alan johnson, we would have never ended the horrible conflict in liberia had it not been for the women of liberia. they said they had enough. christian and muslim women alike joined together to make it clear to the men who were negotiating the peace agreement which they
tried to negotiate seven or eight times before, they were not going home. they barred the boards and guarded the windows so the men could not escape until they reach a peace agreement and if you want to see that in action one of my favorite documentary's is created double back to hell which is what happened in liberia because women stood up and said we are the ones who were most at risk. it is at eric holder and who are being savagely abused or kills. we cannot stand for this any longer peer. as the incident at georgetown does its work, as the national defense university integrates into the curriculum what it means to stand up for women, peace and security, we will learn these lessons and work
with our friends and colleagues this is not last if you don't represent the entire community and you can't do that without women's voices and participation. [applause] >> you have made, excuse me, this issue a priority issue at the bush institute and put focus on the range of investments in afghan women and economic participation is one of the most significant. tell us a little bit about why. why does economic participation and the ability of women to do their work enable them to be more secure in an insecure environment and also create stability in their country? >> one of the important reasons is if you leave half of the population out of the economy
you have a successful economy. when women are included in economic life and actually afghan women especially entrepreneurialism, heard lots of great stories, a woman who started the furniture business early on, right after the taliban left kabul and became successful as furniture builder and furniture salesman, men, cobblers, said help us build a shoe company, she said know. my daughter has been able to help you and she said i will give you a loan but you will have to pay me back so now her daughter is in the shootmaking business with three men, three cobblers who wanted her help to build a business. all of that is important but afghan women are working right now and what of different
businesses in afghanistan. but afghanistan stand that a point that if they can stay stable and secure, to be able to develop a lot of their resources that they had. i want to encourage you and this is something i would like to do through the bush institute, to be a convene with people of afghanistan, corporations, united states corporations to helped develop what you all have in afghanistan, but not develop it for export but developed it so that you and the people of afghanistan can learn the skills to build whatever it is you have at home so that people are employed at home and you make not just what you would make by selling your resources but make what you make by selling the resources turned into the products that you build yourself
and you can build your economy in a great way and once men are employed also and young men are employed across afghanistan, then there is going to be a lot less, a lot fewer young men who want to join the taliban, but instead want to build safe lives for themselves, prosperous lives. education and employment are the two keys and we know those are the keys in our country as well. [applause] >> i hate to end this conversation but the clock is ticking and i don't want us to leave until we can ask one more question. and that is the continuation of some of what you folks said. if this room is filled with policymakers, ngo leaders,
business leaders, extraordinary students, something i have discovered over the last few months coming back to my alma mater, young men and women with great challenge, administrators who care, what can we do? we heard a lot already, we care a little more. what can each of us do to advance this agenda and ensure the kinds of investments that have been made are the united states and the international community over the last decade indoor and don't push everything back? >> i would say first keep talking about it. i am so worried that once our troops leave no one will pay attention again to afghanistan and we just can't take that risk. we don't want the people of afghanistan to think because our troops are leaving they no longer matter to us because they
do matter and the relationships and friendshipss we built especially with afghan women, the afghan women's council, for many opportunities we had to meet, really do matter to us and i want the people of afghanistan to know that the people of the united states do support them and i with them. at a conference we had shortly after we moved back to dallas at the bush institute, the opus prius wenner, she said listen, don't feel sorry for us, just be with us. we need to stay with them and we will. [applause] >> besides saymen, i would love
to have georgetown students talk with one another about what you undo in solidarity with the young people of afghanistan. the population of young people is 60%, very high percentage, what can you do to support them through virtual contract, raising money, through exchange programs, anything that can keep the lines of communication and relationship building going. university is making a very significant contribution to the future debate through the institute on peace and security and other academic and professional programs. tomorrow we can link up our university communities, specific
issues in support, american university in kabul, looking for ways to do more in exchanges that could be partner with the nih team -- bush institute, those are lifelines that make a tremendous difference in validating the work that is being done and lifting up examples. it is important to tell the story to our fellow americans about what has been accomplished because there is a sense, what did we really get for everything we did? how do we know it will last? we need to tell the story of the first question, here it is a lot of what we accomplished, compare where afghanistan was in 2001 with where they are today and take it to the next level by as
laura said, talking about why this is important for the united states. i am hoping in the next year, the upcoming years about the critical year, we will have a much greater awareness and a better connection among people who know what is at stake in afghanistan from a moral perspective, a human rights perspective, strategic economic political, whichever way you enter into it, everyone of those is at stake and to think of ways we can be creative to support the women and men who are trying to move afghanistan forward and the three of us will be deeply involved in making that case, a virtual army is leaving, we need a virtual army to help us make
the case and to build that awareness in the united states and around the world. [applause] >> thank you to you both, mrs. bush, secretary clinton,hank you for all you have done and all you will surely continue to do and thank you for being an extraordinary bipartisan face on an issue -- [applause] >> the senate is about to gavel in for an hour of general speeches to work on the defense authorization bill. the bill would authorize
$625,100,000,000 in discretionary national defense funding for fiscal year 2014. the senate live on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order and the chaplain, retired admiral barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. holy god, you make the clouds your chariot and walk upon the wind. we see your works in the rising of the sun and in its setting. for the beauty of the earth and the glory of the skies, we give you praise.
today, make our lawmakers heirs of peace, demonstrating that they are your children as they strive to find common ground. may they take pleasure in doing your will, knowing that by so doing they are fulfilling your purposes in our world. lord, you are never far from us but often we are far from you, so show us your ways and teach us your paths. thank you that your mercy is from everlasting to everlasting upon those who come to you with
reverence. may your glory endure forever. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of senator mcconnell
the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. following that morning business the senate will resume consideration of the defense authorization act. the senate will recess today from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for our weekly caucus meetings. we'll work on amendments to the defense bill today and everyone will be notified when votes are scheduled. mr. president, we're going today to continue work on the defense bill. it's really an important measure, and that's an understatement. it safeguards this nation. it assures or troops have the resources and training they need. it provides for our military families of our fighting men and women. it is a serious bill that deserves serious debate, not be
bogged down by unrelated political issues. for example, this legislation includes a lot of things, including the pay raise for members in armed forces, reauthorizes dozens of special pay rates and bonuses. for example, bonus payments for service members who seek combat who are stationed overseas. this important legislation also includes robust and far-reaching provisions to combat sexual assault in the military including changes that would include perpetrators are punished. senators gillibrand, levin and mccaskill have done good tworbg confront this -- work to confront this problem. the senate must also consider amendments related to guantanamo bay detention. everyone is aware we cannot complete this bill until we debate the sexual debate,
guantanamo provisions. i know this bill has a lot of stuff people would like to change. we're not going to be able to change a lot of that. the committee did really good work in coming up with the bill. the two issues i talked about, though, must have votes. the -- i would accept the language in the defense bill as it relates to guantanamo. i think it is a significant improvement. but my republican colleagues want to have an opportunity to change that, and i understand that. that's why i said that should be the first measure that we vote on. i said that more than once, and i'll say it again. the matter dealing with sexual assault, that's a controversial matter and we have to have a vote on that. we have to do that. and that's why i said that's the second-most important issue that we deal with in this bill. why couldn't we get these two important issues out of the way? i'm speaking only for myself.
but if we had votes on those two measures, i think the bill would be ready to go to conference. i know people don't like to hear that but i think that in fact is the case. the time, effort, wisdom led by senator levin to come up with a bill working with the new ranking member, senator inhofe, has been a labor of love for both of them. but these two issues need to be resolved in the senate floor. i ask that be done. i asked last night consent, let's get these things done. objection from my republican colleagues. so if we can't vote even on these amendments to these two crucial issues -- and i know there are other issues, but no one can in any way disparage what i've just said. these are two real important issues. everyone, i think, agrees they have to be considered before we
complete work on this underlying legislation. so if we can't get these two things done, how are we going to get any of the other issues that we need to work on? maybe i'm, i shouldn't be optimistic but i can be hopeful we'll be able to schedule votes on these amendments soon. in the meantime senators should not wait to debate these issues, just these two issues, until we schedule votes on these amendments. senators should come to the floor to speak on the issues now. there's limited time to complete this bill before the thanksgiving holiday and senators should use that time wisely to engage in meaningful debate. mr. president, i am totally aware that a number of senators wish to offer amendments on other issues as well. both defense-related and otherwise. so file your amendments, and i hope we can figure out a way to have a robust amendment process.
however, mr. president, we cannot allow this important legislation to be sidetracked by debates and amendments unrelated to our nation's defense. now, nation's defense is a relative term and some people have different ideas as to what that should mean. but the united states has passed this bill for more than half a century. this is a sign of respect for this institution and for the people that this legislation represents, our nation's armed services. so let's give this bill the respect that it deserves. on another matter, mr. president, i've talked about the defense bill. it's hard for me to describe words to express my disappointment for our country
in yesterday's vote on another person to go to the d.c. circuit court of appeals. the last three who have been filibustered are good people, qualified, records of outstanding work in the courts, scholastically brilliant, every one of them. but republican obstruction has become endemic in the senate over the last five years grinding this institution to a halt and threatening the integrity of this institution and damaging our country. no president should have to put up with what president obama has had to put up with.
mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: over the past few weeks we've seen a vivid painful confirmations of the predictions many of us made about obamacare. most notable of them perhaps is the president oft repeated promise, if you like your plan, you can keep it. if you like your plan, you can keep it, he said. but we were always doubtful that could possibly be true. this was always what democrats thought they had to tell the american people in order to muscle obamacare into law. they knew it wouldn't work otherwise. they knew the truth would not sell, and of course that's all coming out now. but we're also learning a lot of other very unsettling things about this law like the fact that a lot of things that were working well in our health care system are now being thrown out
for no good reason. by the same people who brought you the obamacare web site. high-risk pools are a good example. about three dozen states set up these kinds of pools to ensure americans with serious medical conditions such as those suffering from diabetes and heart disease would have a place to turn. high-risk pools have often proved successful and popular among the communities they serve. they currently provide insurance to hundreds of thousands of americans, including thousands of kentuckians, nearly all of them with preexisting conditions, the very people the law was supposed to help. these folks benefit from this coverage and many want to keep it. unfortunately that will no longer be possible under obamacare. nearly all of them will lose their coverage at the end of the year. just like millions of other americans across the country,
folks who like the coverage they have in these high-risk pools. and remember, i'm talking about some of the most vulnerable people in our society are now discovering that they won't be able to keep it either. despite what the president told us again and again and again. as it turns out the folks who ran this law through congress think people in these high-risk pools belong in obamacare instead. they don't think it matters. they don't think it matters whether my constituents want to get dumped into obamacare or not. they made that decision for them. a lot of folks in kentucky don't think this is right, and they're upset. and not just because they're losing their plans and all the hassle and complication that involves. for many of these folks, the plans they're being forced into have more limited hospital and doctor networks than the plans
they currently have. as one state official recently put it -- quote -- "if you're in the middle of chemotherapy, the last thing you want to do is switch oncologists." we seem to see these kinds of stories just about every day now. there is the north carolina woman with a severe heart condition who said she didn't know if her cardiologist and her procedures will be covered under obamacare. here's what she said. "it's the uncertainty that gets me. there's the breast cancer survivor and the husband who had been paying about $800 a month for premiums in a high-risk pool. after that policy was canceled, they expected lower rates under obamacare. instead they found their premium and deductibles are actually going up. this is scary stuff, but these
are the real-life consequences of obamacare. this is no longer some theoretical policy discussion. and i would suggest that as we contemplate the future of this law, our democratic friends should start paying closer attention to stories like these. because it's not enough to have a messaging strategy and to play the old washington game of trying to weather the p.r. storm until folks move on. these stories we're hearing from our constituents are literally heartbreaking. this isn't some hassle to move past. it's a problem to solve. it's what we were sent here for and it's what health care reform should be about. about helping folks, not hurting them. so we don't need to get past this news cycle as some of the white house spinners seem to think. what we need to get past is a white house mentality that told us last week that passing a bill to codify the very promise the president made to sell the bill
would gut obamacare. we need to get past the mentality that caused the president to issue a veto threat on a law that would let him keep the promise to the american people about keeping the health care plans they have. and like. i mean, it's almost comical watching the contortions the administration is making trying to explain this fiasco away. over the weekend we learned through a white house leak to "the washington post" that the president's new definition of success for the obamacare web site is four out of five users making it through the checkout line. four out of five users making it through the checkout line. who thinks that's acceptable? i certainly don't, and i can't think of anybody outside the white house compound who will think that's acceptable either. and frankly, if this is the president's way of restoring credibility on this law by leaking out that the web site
won't even work for one out of five users just a few days after vowing it would soon be up and running like a top, well, he's got some work to do, and the bar for clarity, honesty and success under obamacare has sunk to new lows. look, if you're being treated for cancer and about to be dumped into obamacare, the last thing you want to hear is that leaving one out of five people behind is now considered an obamacare win. we're talking about people's lives here. this kind of mindset, whether we're talking about a web site or anything else, is deeply worrying. but then again, this has always been the problem with blind faith in massive government programs. it's the old idea that we shouldn't let the evidence get in the way of a good theory. that's the mindset the supporters of this law are stuck in right now. just blindly adhering to the hope that this thing will work against all the evidence.
it's pretty distressing. it's going to have to change if we're going to get anywhere. the real question right now should be obvious. what's the administration's plan to turn all this around? we know they have a press plan. what's the policy plan? what's the policy plan? does the administration have anything of substance to tell folks who are losing their plans? does it have anything to tell folks who are in these high-risk pools who could be losing their doctors? does anyone over there know anyone? i've said this before and i'll say it again -- these are people's lives we're talking about, so it's time for a reality check. the defenders of obamacare have a choice -- stand up for your constituents or defend a law that's falling apart before our very eyes, a law that threatens to drag down the quality and
affordability of care for millions, literally millions of americans who need it, including those most in need. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for debate only for one hour, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each and with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. recognize the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i have a very brief statement that i will nominate, and i thank the senators from maryland and maine for allowing me to do this. i would ask the very brief statement that i will be making not count against morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, later this morning, the senate is
going to resume consideration of senate bill 1197, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2014. i will have a full statement to make on this legislation later today. however, i'd like to take just a moment to talk to my colleagues about where we are on the bill and how we would like to proceed. last night, the majority leader asked for unanimous consent to bring up side-by-side amendments on subjects that we know we need to debate and vote on -- military detention at guantanamo and sexual assault and misconduct in the military. each amendment and side by side is to be subject to a 60-vote threshold. unfortunately, there was an objection to this request, and as a result of that objection, the majority leader filled the amendment tree on our bill. now we're in a position where we are going to need the cooperation of all senators to get this important bill passed,
as we must, in the limited time available to us before thanksgiving week in order that we will have time to go to conference, get a conference report and bring that conference report back to the house and to the senate. now, it remains our intention to bring up and vote on as many relevant amendments to the bill as possible, and i know that the republican manager and the ranking member, senator inhofe, shares this objective. toward this end, i expect there will be further attempts later in the day to reach a unanimous consent on the first amendments to be brought up. and that will be a repeat of the unanimous consent that was offered last night for those first two amendments. it is also our intention, mr. president, to clear amendments as we have always done on this bill. i urge our colleagues if you have amendments to file them, bring them to us so we can try
to clear them. the majority and minority staffs of the armed services committee are working hard on this. we hope to have a first package of cleared amendments ready for consideration later today, and we will continue to go through that process during the week. finishing this bill is going to be a very difficult task. we've managed to do it for the last 51 years, and i am confident that with the cooperation of all senators, that we'll be able to do it again this year. we must for the sake of our troops, their families and our nation. i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, today we of course are beginning the debate on the national defense authorization act. throughout the next hour and throughout the rest of the day, you will see the women of the senate take the floor, one, in
support of our military, but also to express their concern and their ideas on how to deal with sexual violence in the military. you will see in the next hour our ideas, the fact that we have excellent ideas in the bill, and then we will have a robust debate on how to even further enhance this process. this is a compelling national problem. when you join the military and you face the enemy, you shouldn't have to fear the enemy within. no woman should be a victim of rape by a fellow disaster or seaman or corpsman. no man should face the same sexual attack and call it hazing. there is no place in the united states military of violence -- for violence against one member of the military by another. now, i'm pretty fed up. i'm fed up with lip service and
empty promises and zero tolerance policies and task force after task force after task force. i'm an old-timer in this institution. i have been here for 25 years. i have worked on this issue for every year since then. there has been some repugnant thing that has occurred. from when i was a brand-new senator, i had to deal with the situation at the naval academy where a female midshipman was chained to a urinal at the naval academy and taunted for three fours by fellow midshipmen until she was freed by a visiting air force cadet, to get her out of handcuffs at her own naval academy. then there was tailhook. then there was other kinds of incidents. statistics after statistics. there are 26,000 reasons why we are on the floor today, 26
sexual assaults have occurred in our united states military this past year. then we look at the service academy's training of the future leaders. 15 attacks at the naval academy, 15 attacks at west point, and over 50 attacks at the united states air force academy. now is the time to do something, to do something bold, to do something strong and something unequivocal, something that victims can have confidence in, the accused can feel that the process will be fair and that we restore the confidence in the united states military to stop this and to deal with their own. now, i'm proud of the leadership taken by the women in the senate and the women on the armed services committee. there are now seven women on the
armed services committee, five democrats and two republicans, and wow, did they work on a bipartisan basis with the leadership of the committee. we appreciate the work of the fine men who supported us in dealing with this. we particularly want to thank chairman levin for his leadership, and we want to acknowledge the role of senator inhofe, and by the way all of the women of the senate wish to express our sincere condolences to senator inhofe on the loss of his beloved son dr. peter inhofe. so this is not just a women-only fight. this is a fight to make sure that our military continues to be the best in the world, and when you serve on it, there is an enemy outside that we will always face but there is an enemy within that we need to now end. we, the women of the senate, all of us, agree on the goals. we want to be able to provide
prosecutorial tours for punishment. we want to make sure we get help to the victims. the national defense authorization act has more than 30 reforms in it to accomplish that. 13 relate to prosecutorial reforms. ten are to reform victim services. and two reforms are to improve training of first responders. five also deal with various kinds of reporting. i am so pleased that the bill works to prevent retaliation against someone who reports a crime. so if you feel that you have been a victim of sexual assault, you're not retaliateing by -- retaliating by stepping forward when you are doubly victimized, both by the attack and then by those who want to schedule much the fact that you want to bring
the attack to the surface and to follow some kind of redress and to also get help. it also eliminates the statute of limitations on court-martials for sexual crimes. it requires a review of decisions by commanders not to prosecute and requires dishonorable discharge for anyone convicted of a sexual assault. the bill ensures that every victim gets access to legal counsel and support. this is really important. it's important not only to me and the other women, but it's important to the person who would be injured. first responders must have training in sexual assault. there are others that could be elaborated on. sexual assault in the military continues to rise. it is a problem, as i said. and i'm worried about the men and women every day to be sure that they are well trained and well protected. you know, mr. president, unfortunately, many of these acts of violence are unreported,
unprosecuted and unpunished. d.o.d.'s own annual report gives us a picture of why victims don't report the crimes. 50% don't think anything will be done. 43% believe they won't be believed. and 47% were afraid of retaliation. the reforms in this bill deals with those fears and their concerns. we are ready to reform, revise and standardize how the military deals with these problems. these reforms would change the way the military think and how they act. now, during the course of this whole process, we have met with victims and heard their stories, with experts and advocates. we have met with the military themselves. now we're ready to give all concerned in this a voice by using the defense bill for a vehicle for serious and significant reform, and we have been able to do this because we have worked together, on both
sides of the aisle, working with the leadership of the committee. 30 reforms that people can count on for fairness in the process for the accused but also help to those who feel that they have been victimized but to be sure that they are not victimized by the very system that they count on. mr. president, i yield the floor and eagerly look forward to hearing from my senior republican colleague, senator collins. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. first, i want to commend the senior senator from maryland, the dean of the women senators, for organizing this debate today on an issue that concerns each of us, and that is the growing prices of sexual assault in the military. mr. president, i first raised my
concern over the military's inadequate response to the growing crisis of sexual assault nearly ten years ago. i remember it well. it was a hearing before the senate armed services committee in 2004 at which i expressed my growing alarm about the number of sexual assaults in the military and the inadequate response by the leaders of the military to provide adequate care for the survivors and to ensure appropriate punishment for the perpetrators of these reprehensible crimes. in an exchange that i had with general george casey, i stated the military needs to be much more responsive to reports of sexual assault, particularly in
the field, and to separate these women and in some cases the male victims from their alleged attackers. the department must also vigorously prosecute offenders and hold commanders accountable for establishing zero tolerance policies. mr. president, to say that general casey's response was disappointing would be an understatement. i am convinced that if the military had heeded the concerns that i and others like senator mikulski raised back then a decade ago, this terrible problem would have been addressed much sooner, saving many individuals from the trauma, the pain, and the injustice that they endured.
back then, sadly, the attitude of the high-ranking officials who were testifying at that 2004 hearing was dismissive even though these crimes never should have occurred in the first place, traumatized the survivor and erode the trust and discipline that are fundamental to every military unit. thankfully the attitude i perceive amongst senior military officers today is markedly different from the one that i encountered nine years ago. the work of translating the military's stated policy of zero tolerance into reality, however, remains unfinished business. fostering a culture of zero to cans so that the number of -- of zero tolerance so that the
number of assaults is greatly diminished remains a goal, not reality. and ensuring that survivors do not think twice about reporting an assault for fear of retaliation or damage to their careers is still not part of the military culture. in 2011, i joined our former colleague john kerry in coauthoring the defense strong act as an initial step to address this crisis. provisions of that bill were signed into law as part of the fiscal year 2012 national defense authorization act. they provide survivors of sexual assault the assistance of advocates with genuine confidentiality. they provide guaranteed access to an attorney and expedited consideration to be transferred far away from their assailant.
earlier this year i introduced the coast guard strong act to extend these protections to coast guard members, and i thank chairman levin and ranking member inhofe and senator mccaskill for their work to include these provisions in this year's ndaa. more than anything, survivors need to have the confidence that the legal system in which they report a crime will produce a just and fair result. based upon data from the department of defense's most recent sexual assault prevention and response survey, that view is not held by enough service members or survivors. as a result, i've supported and introduced legislation with senators gillibrand and mccaskill aimed at reducing the barriers to justice that many survivors of sexual assault
currently face in the military. and i want to commend both senator gillibrand and senator mccaskill for their extraordinary leadership and dedication to resolving this unacceptable problem. let me also thank chairman levin and ranking member inhofe for incorporating significant provisions from both bills into the ndaa. in fact, there are more than 26 provisions specifically targeting sexual assault in the military in the bill that we are debating today. for example -- and there are many but i want to highlight one because it was part of a bill that senator mccaskill and i introduced -- the legislation mandates a dishonorable
discharge or dismissal for any service member convicted of sexual assault. this came from a bipartisan bicameral bill, the be safe act that i introduced with senator mccaskill, congresswoman nikki tsongas and congressman mike turner earlier this year. there are many other important provisions that are included in this bill, and i ask unanimous consent that my full statement listing those provisions be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: our work will not be complete, however, until the pentagon has demonstrated that it is fully enforcing its stated policy of zero tolerance for sexual assault. now there are strong views if -n the pentagon and in congress on
how best to address this issue beyond the 26 provisions in the bill before us. there is much debate on what it means for the military's unique legal system. one of the criticisms that i have heard is that we should wait a few more months for the results of still more studies or perhaps even wait a few more years to see if recently enacted provisions have made a difference. mr. president, i strongly disagree. how many more victims are required to suffer before we take additional action? how many more lives must be ruined before we act? rather than waiting for the results of yet more studies, we must debate proposals to increase the confidence of survivors and increase prevention efforts now until we
have proved that the military has indeed fostered a culture of zero tolerance in which survivors are no longer concerned about retaliation from their peers or even their commanders. and that is why i've decided to support senator gillibrand's amendment to this bill. this was not an easy decision, as there are valid arguments on both sides. but senator gillibrand's amendment takes aim squarely at the problem of victims failing to report sexual assaults. in my judgment, her amendment will encourage more victims to report sexual assaults. and that is absolutely critical. there can be no question, mr. president, about the senate's commitment to reducing
the instances of sexual assault in the military and to providing appropriate care for survivors. as we debate various proposals, we are united by the need for the serious reforms that are included already in this bill and that will enhance the military's response to sexual assault. and i want to thank all of those on the armed services committee, particularly the two leaders, and senator mccaskill and senator gillibrand for their excellent work. i am certain that our work on the ndaa will make a real difference in reducing unnecessary suffering, injury, and injustice. thank you, mr. president. ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the
senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: i thank you, mr. president. i want to thank my colleagues, senator collins, senator mikulski for their leadership on this issue and for bringing this important discussion to the floor today. i also want to thank senator murkowski, who i see in the chamber as well, who has been a leader, as well as senator mccaskill, who is a member of the armed services committee with me. this has been an issue that has brought people together, and it has brought people together for the right reasons. an issue that the women of the senate have really, i think, driven but it's important to understand that this is not a woman's issue. the issue of ending sexual assaults in our military is an issue for everyone. this is an issue about justice. this is an issue about fairness. this is about making sure that victims of crimes, both men and
women get the justice that they deserve, get the support that they deserve in our military and that they understand and appreciate that we want them to have a climate in the military where if they are a victim, they can come forward and get the support that they need and that they deserve. and finally, this is also about the character of our military. we are blessed to have the very best military in the world, but when there is a plague of sexual assaults like we have seen in our military, it undermines the very fabric of our military in terms of our readiness, in terms of our preparedness, in terms of the cohesiveness of our units. and that's why it's not only important that we address and support the victims of these crimes, that we end sexual assault in our military, but that we have a climate in our military that says if you are a commander and you do not stop
sexual assaults, prevent sexual assaults, have a climate in your unit that says zero tolerance, this is not going to happen, and if a victim comes forward in your unit that you don't handle this the right way and do the right thing and support victims and ensure that perpetrators are held accountable, you will be relieved from command. and that is the climate in which all of the reforms in the defense authorization are brought forward, where we work together across the aisle with provisions that are very strong to support victims. one of those is a special victims council. and senator patty murray and i introduced a bill stand-alone to ensure based on a pilot in the air force, a pilot program in the air force that victims of sexual assault will now actually have their own lawyer, someone to represent them and their interests, to know if they come forward there is someone looking out for them. and that's one of the provisions
contained in this defense authorization bill to ensure that every victim will have someone who stands for them. in addition to that, retaliation, we've now made retaliation against victims a crime under the uniform cowed of military justice -- uniform code of military justice, to say to victims that if you come forward and for some reason you're retaliated against, then whoever does that will be guilty of a crime. sending the message that, please come forward, we want to support you. and we want to ensure that the perpetrators are held accountable. now in addition, i believe that if we want to solve this problem, the provisions in this bill that people have worked together on are very, very strong. i want to thank the chairman of the armed services committee and the ranking member for their work together. we are going to pass in this chamber unprecedented reforms
that ensure that the military understands this is not an issue anymore that can be left in the closet. this is not an issue that can be quietly spoken of where victims feel that they can't come forward. that the reforms in this bill are very tough, they support victims, they hold commanders accountable, and they make sure that we do not see what we have seen in the past, things like commanders overturning the verdicts. that will be done under this bill, and that is not allowed anymore if this bill passes on the floor. so i simply come to the floor today to say there's so much that we have agreed upon that is going to address this issue in the military. and for all of my colleagues that are on the floor today, i thank them for their leadership. but we will not let this rest. the one thing i do know is that
certainly those of us that serve on the armed services committee and those who are here who don't serve on the armed services committee but serve on other very important committees in the chamber, including the appropriations committee, that despite the unprecedented reforms that i believe we're going to pass on a bipartisan basis to end sexual assault in the military and ensure that victims are supported, we're not going to let this go. this is not going to be something where we pass these reforms and that's the end of the story. every few months, we're going to be asking what have you done to implement these reforms? every few months, we're going to be expecting a report back to the united states senate to ensure that what we have all intended to occur here that is the right thing for victims of crime, that is the right thing for our military is getting done. so while i am very proud of everything that we have done and we will do when we pass the defense authorization on a
bipartisan basis to stand against sexual assault in our military, this is not the end of the story, and we will continue to pursue this, to make sure that our military understands that they are accountable, that victims of crime understand in the military that they will be supported, and that we will not let this go. and so i thank you, mr. president. i want to thank my colleagues for their leadership and everything that they have done to support victims of crime and to end sexual assault in our military. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i rise to join my colleagues. i join many of my colleagues, the senator from maine, the senator from new hampshire, our leader, the senator from maryland, in making sure the voices of women are heard in this debate. we know that in may, 2013, the defense department released a report that showed 26,000
incidents of unwanted sexual contact among service members. that's an increase of 35% over two years. washingtonians in my state are very proud of the incredible men and women who keep our country safe and defend us, and we are proud of the ten military installations across our state. there are more than 65,000 men and women serving in the state of washington military installations, bases like joint base louis mccord, the everett navy station, bangor submarine base, fairchild air force base. so we take it seriously when there were 116 reports of sexual assaults across all of these installations in the state of washington in 2010.
that number is too high. and that is the only amount that is being reported. we know that there may be many assaults that are unreported. as my colleagues are saying, we need to do everything we can to address this problem. i am pleased that joint base lewis mccord is developing a sexual assault prevention program and i urge my colleagues in the senate to act to address this epidemic problem. the men and women of our armed forces are basically defending our country, and so why are we leaving them unprotected while they serve? i have cosponsored legislation authored by my colleague, the senior senator from washington, to provide special victim counsel to victims of sexual assault, and this will ensure that professionals trained in dealing with sexual assault are there to support the victims.
there may be differing opinions on how best to achieve the overall goals of reducing sexual assault in the military, but i believe that all my colleagues can agree on one common goal -- protecting the victims from further abuse. we need to put an end to an environment that allows sexual assault to occur and let the perpetrators go unpunished and discourage victims of sexual assault through fear and intimidation. again, we may differ on how to best achieve that goal, but we are all here to say the same thing -- enough is enough. we will not tolerate the sexual assaults in the military and armed forces, and we owe it to our service members to come together and act toward a solution today. that's why my colleagues are here, to emphasize this point in a way that speaks volumes about
how this tragedy is affecting men and women in the armed services and the fact that this institution needs to come together to address it. i thank the president and i yield the floor. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i ask unanimous consent that major kelsey williams, a u.s. army officer who is serving as a military fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the session of the 113th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: i want to thank the senator from maryland, the dean of the women in the senate, and the senator from maine who have organized this portion of the debate this morning. i want to acknowledge and thank the other women of the senate who are coming here this morning to speak on an issue that we would all agree is something that must be addressed that for far too long has not seen the
redress that it commands. and so we stand together unified in an effort to truly make a difference. i want to acknowledge the good work, particularly, of senators mccaskill and senators gillibrand who have really worked to raise the awareness of the issue, who have truly advanced the discussion to the point where i believe that for the first time in far too long, we will make substantive, meaningful headway when it comes to -- to addressing sexual assault, sexual harassment and what has been called or referred to as military sexual trauma. working together, i think we do have that impetus, that push to truly address in a meaningful way these areas. mr. president, when the senate passes the national defense authorization act for 2014, i
think it will be evident to all that we have sent a very strong message on these issues, a very united message, clearly bipartisan. i think it's clear to all who have been following the debates, first in the armed services committee and now here on the floor, that there are differences of opinion within this body about how we address the crisis, how to create a culture that prevents the kinds of incidents that we are talking about from ever occurring, how we work to protect the rights of victims, how to ensure that justice and accountability are achieved in an open and a transparent fashion so that victims know that there is a system that works for them, so that our constituents know that, so that we here in congress have that confidence again, because right now that confidence does not exist. we recognize that there remain
differences across the body in how -- how to achieve the elimination of sexual assault, sexual harassment and military sexual trauma i believe, mr. president, that the amendment that is offered by our colleague from new york, senator gillibrand, is the best medicine for a difficult situation that has been allowed to languish for far too long. this afternoon, i intend to spend a little more time explaining why i think senator gillibrand's amendment, while it is strong medicine and it is disruptive of the status quo, why i believe that it is the right way to go. but my purpose this morning in joining with -- with my female colleagues here in the senate is not to argue for or against one amendment or another. it's to point out that the ndaa, as reported by the armed services committee, includes many provisions, so many provisions agreeable to all that
truly have a positive impact going forward. i'd also like to point out that during the course of our debate on the ndaa, the senate will consider some other amendments which enjoy broad support. my colleague, the senator from california, senator boxer, spoke very eloquently just last night about her amendment that will protect victims' rights in article 32 proceedings. this amendment has drawn good, strong support from those who support senator gillibrand's approach as well as those who oppose it. i am proud to cosponsor senator boxer's amendment. i think it's good legislation, and i hope that we can come together to adopt it. i have submitted amendment 2141. this ensures cadets and midshipmen at our nation's service academies have access to special victims' counsel and assault nurse exercise.
another one of my amendments 2133 requires reports from the heads of our service academies on the services available to victims of military sexual trauma. i hope -- i would certainly hope that these noncontroversial amendments can be offered and accepted at the appropriate time. i think all of these ideas -- those mentioned by my colleague from new hampshire, those that have been addressed by my colleague from maine and others, these will all help to make a difference, but i think we recognize that this is just the beginning of solving the problem. the congress of the united states can encourage good behavior, and we can sanction bad behavior, but what we cannot do is we cannot legislate good culture. over the next few days, we're going to hear a good many words about the importance of the chain of command in maintaining good culture, and some will argue that our efforts to ensure that bad behavior is sanctioned will cause the chain of command to abandon this responsibility.
i don't accept this proposition. regardless of how we dispose of senator gillibrand's amendment, senator mccaskill's amendment, it is the responsibility of the chain of command to provide for good order and discipline and sound military culture, always. this is a nondelegateable duty of those who accept positions of leadership and responsibility within our armed forces. those who wear the uniform reflect the values of this country and every action that they take must uphold those values. sometimes, though, i wonder, you have to wonder does the chain of command get it? and to illustrate a point, i can't to share a sad story. this is a story that senator gillibrand and i shared. the soldier's name was danny chin. he grew up in new york city's
chinatown. he joined the army and he was assigned to fort wainwright in fairbanks, alaska. from there, he was deployed to afghanistan. nine months after his deployment, he was found dead in afghanistan of what the army described as -- quote -- "an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound." "new york magazine" describes his experience in afghanistan this way -- a group of his superiors allegedly tormented chin on an almost daily basis over the course of about six weeks in afghanistan last fall. they singled him out. he was their only chinese american soldier. they spit racial slurs at him. they forced him to do sprints while carrying a sandbag. they ordered him to crawl along gravel-covered ground while they flunk rocks at him. one day when his unit was assembling a tent. he was forced to wear a hardhat
and shout out instructions to his fellow soldiers in chinese. danny chin's story is not about sexual assault or sexual harassment, but it is about harassment. it's about the kind of extreme behavior that has no place, absolutely no place in the armed forces of this world's greatest democracy. just like sexual assault, just like sexual harassment and military sexual trauma have no place in the armed forces of the world's greatest democracy. this week, mr. president, we have the opportunity to send a strong statement to the chain of command that they need to clean up the culture. never again should we have to speak of a culture that allows harassment, assault and trauma generated from within to fester within our military. so i join with my colleagues
this morning in unity for the victims and for a change, a change that will realign the reality that our service members seem to face in the armed forces with the values of the greatest democracy on earth. i thank the president and my colleagues, and i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise today to speak on the national defense authorization act and how the senate and particularly the women of the senate are working to address the crisis of military sexual assault. i'd like to thank senator mikulski and senator collins for organizing and bringing us together this morning. i'd like to thank senator levin and inhofe for their leadership, and i'd like to thank senator mccaskill and senator gillibrand for working on this
critical legislation over the course of the past year. and of course, i'd like to thank all of the women of the senate, you have heard from many of them this morning and we will hear from more because this is an incredible year, a year that i hope will be remembered as a decisive one in the effort to eradicate military sexual assault once and for all. we are all too well aware that sexual assault continues to plague our armed forces. we have all seen the horrifying numbers. in 2012, the department of defense received 3,374 reports of sexual assaults in the military. but by the d.o.d.'s own estimates, 26,000 -- 26 26,000inessents -- of sexual assault actually took place during that per. that means that only 29%, a small fraction of all incidences, were actually reported. and even of the